search.noResults

search.searching

dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
WETLANDS - LAPWING FALLOW PLOTS |


90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10


0 Fallow plots Arable crops Fallow plots Arable crops


individual nests and chicks. We also measured other factors considered likely to influence lapwing productivity, such as predator abundance and chick food availability. Our data indicated high nest survival on fallow plots (77%) and on conventional


crop fields (65%). Chick survival, however, was very low, at less than 9% in both cases and was insufficient to maintain stable lapwing numbers (see Figure 1). This was supported by our estimates of overall productivity, which indicated that the number of chicks fledged per pair was 0.49 ± 0.08 on fallow plots and 0.35 ± 0.09 on conven- tional crops. The difference between these figures was not statistically significant, but both were lower than the level of productivity generally accepted to be required for a stable population (0.70 chick/pair/annum). We concluded that fallow plots were functioning as they were originally conceived, providing suitable habitat during nesting, but that they were not achieving the overarching aim of aiding lapwing population recovery, owing to the poor survival of chicks. Lapwing chicks were lost largely to predators, including foxes, small mustelids, raptors and corvids. Over the four years of our study, predation accounted for 84% of


Figure 1


Comparison of lapwing nest and chick survival with respect to nesting locations on fallow plots and conventional crops in 2012 and 2013. Error bars are 95% confidence limits


Chicks Nests


Lapwing chicks were lost largely to predators including foxes, small mustelids, raptors and corvids. © Dave Kjaer


www.gwct.org.uk GAME & WILDLIFE REVIEW 2016 | 25


Percentage survival


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92